Is Federer becoming Sampras?

Sampras cared about 2 things - slams and #1 ranking. Everything else was secondary and he didn't really care that much about winning every tournament or dominating his peers.

I see the same attitude beginning to show in Roger's play this year. There is just no other way to explain it. We start with the 2 losses to Canas - ok, that was a bit of a shock. Clay court season played out according to predictions, Wimbledon was a fight but it was a foregone conclusion. The HC season has been the real shock - this is Fed's turf and the way he played in Montreal just didn't give the impression that he cared all that much. His play in the USO will be telling.

To me it seems that Fed has realized that other tournaments, even Master's series, are just tuneups for the slams. If he wants to be at the top till he's 30, he just cannot try and win every single thing he enters and keep giving 100%. Its just not possible, even for Fed. So I predict from now on we'll see him get fired up for the slams and keep getting 2-3/year, but perhaps not the Fed who loses only 5 matches a year.

I would love to be wrong and maybe he's just going through a bad patch. But I can't help but wonder that this remarkable turn of events came right after his meeting with Pete. Coincidence? - I think NOT!!

Sampras cared about 2 things - slams and #1 ranking. Everything else was secondary and he didn't really care that much about winning every tournament or dominating his peers.

I see the same attitude beginning to show in Roger's play this year. There is just no other way to explain it. We start with the 2 losses to Canas - ok, that was a bit of a shock. Clay court season played out according to predictions, Wimbledon was a fight but it was a foregone conclusion. The HC season has been the real shock - this is Fed's turf and the way he played in Montreal just didn't give the impression that he cared all that much. His play in the USO will be telling.

To me it seems that Fed has realized that other tournaments, even Master's series, are just tuneups for the slams. If he wants to be at the top till he's 30, he just cannot try and win every single thing he enters and keep giving 100%. Its just not possible, even for Fed. So I predict from now on we'll see him get fired up for the slams and keep getting 2-3/year, but perhaps not the Fed who loses only 5 matches a year.

I would love to be wrong and maybe he's just going through a bad patch. But I can't help but wonder that this remarkable turn of events came right after his meeting with Pete. Coincidence? - I think NOT!!

Click to expand...

I think he might be saving himself so he can try to win slams later in his career.

Another thing I've noticed is that Fed of late has been relying more and more on his serve to get him cheap points, and his groundstrokes seem to lack power - where is that lethal forehand that could end points at will?

We fans, put too much on players...they are humans after all. Fed is, as I said, trying ot end points quickly, and one way to accomplish that is by using his serve...why does he want quick points? So his body will not suffer, ergo he will have a long career at the top. Is that so hard to understand?

Bottomline is, FED is probably the most talented and skilled player of all time...and he is also one of the SMARTEST one there is. He knows the value of pacing and longevity.

We fans, put too much on players...they are humans after all. Fed is, as I said, trying ot end points quickly, and one way to accomplish that is by using his serve...why does he want quick points? So his body will not suffer, ergo he will have a long career at the top. Is that so hard to understand?

Bottomline is, FED is probably the most talented and skilled player of all time...and he is also one of the SMARTEST one there is. He knows the value of pacing and longevity.

Click to expand...

Sampras strung his 85 square racquet harder and harder as he was getting older and I do think his game changed alot towards the end of his career, so watching Fed now, he also has fairly small head, 90 I think and he also relys more on serve and I do think that is the resemblence and its fair to say this post is good. Remains to be seen, but fed has got better claycourt record and is better than sampras in this department. Most gifted is or was probably borg but just not so into the game at his time ..

Sampras cared about 2 things - slams and #1 ranking. Everything else was secondary and he didn't really care that much about winning every tournament or dominating his peers.

I see the same attitude beginning to show in Roger's play this year. There is just no other way to explain it. We start with the 2 losses to Canas - ok, that was a bit of a shock. Clay court season played out according to predictions, Wimbledon was a fight but it was a foregone conclusion. The HC season has been the real shock - this is Fed's turf and the way he played in Montreal just didn't give the impression that he cared all that much. His play in the USO will be telling.

To me it seems that Fed has realized that other tournaments, even Master's series, are just tuneups for the slams. If he wants to be at the top till he's 30, he just cannot try and win every single thing he enters and keep giving 100%. Its just not possible, even for Fed. So I predict from now on we'll see him get fired up for the slams and keep getting 2-3/year, but perhaps not the Fed who loses only 5 matches a year.

I would love to be wrong and maybe he's just going through a bad patch. But I can't help but wonder that this remarkable turn of events came right after his meeting with Pete. Coincidence? - I think NOT!!

Click to expand...

I have a question. Why is it people assume they know what motivates a player, despite not actually knowing what motivates the player? People can speculate, guess, concoct etc, till the cows come home, but it rarely has any basis beyond their own and others fertile imaginations.

Another thing I've noticed is that Fed of late has been relying more and more on his serve to get him cheap points, and his groundstrokes seem to lack power - where is that lethal forehand that could end points at will?

Click to expand...

well if you watched his first round match he did hit a forehand winner at 106 MPH! i think he still can hit it when wants to or needs to...

I think from now on Federer will lose more matches. After all, he's proven he can win anything he wants (except RG) so he will focus on those slams, and just getting enough points in other tournaments to hold his #1 ranking.
Nadal will try and play as much as possible to get Federer, but eventually he will have trouble with his playing too much tournaments!

Another thing I've noticed is that Fed of late has been relying more and more on his serve to get him cheap points, and his groundstrokes seem to lack power - where is that lethal forehand that could end points at will?

Click to expand...

I dont know Fed hit a 106 mph forehand vs Benneteau yesterday. Perhaps the hardest forehand ever struck. Ive never seen more of a killer forehand. He loses to good players playing well. I dont see him losing to George Bastl.

fed cant just focus on slams and stay #1 because theres another dominant player(possibly 2) racking up frenchs and lots of masters

Click to expand...

Well, I hate to start this up, but that player can't really seem to stay healthy during the second half of the season. Nadal will never be #1 if he can't win a hard court slam. Federer will be around for a few more years, and Djokovic is gaining momentum and has shown the ability to beat Nadal on HC. He's won (almost) all of the clay points that exist, thrown in two Wimbly finals and some HC masters series titles and still hasn't sniffed #1. Something has got to give with his scheduling, and hopefully we'll get see what that will be in the near future.

I think it is inevitable that as a player ages, he has to prioritise. I think Fed's still doing well. Nadal and Djokovic played abt the same no. of matches as Fed in Montreal, but both are out 1st round in Cincy. For a guy 5 yrs their senior, he's pretty darn good.

YOu greek ? Pitty all your players have other nationalities. Fed has a couple of more shots at FO, otherwise... Also after playing the hamburg and whatever, and after playing in final last year, this years final was a pure dissapointment for me ! FO final that is !

Fed is gonna focus on the slams, especially the french IMO. I think were gonna see him put more emphasis on his clay game. He will also try to secure aus, wimby and uso with his serve, whilst keeping his amazing arsenal of shots intact, perhaps even getting stronger. He's said himself that this year, he's been trying to incorporate an element of 'explosivity' into his game.

His losses on clay this year - well, its clay
his close wimby final - he was a bit off, and nadal really wanted to win wimbledon
his loss to djoker - djoker is an amazingly talented player, and he basically pulled an AUS 05 Safin

from uso 2008 and on, djoker will challenge fed for all the harcourt slams.
If fed doesn't win FO 08, we might see him taking some emphasis off his hardcourt game and putting more on clay. He will win wimbledon for the rest of his career (with Nadal maybe making a valiant push one more year), and perhaps half of the aus and uso's he plays.

i think you have a point except for another reason: federer is more and more relying on his serve to bail him out of pressure moments esp in wimbledon and his play afterward. i dont know if its him not doing the off court training necessary to maintain his groundstroke rallying ability but his form is becoming more and more erratic.

also, i think you have a point in that he's concentrating more on slams cause he's getting older and he CANT rally as much as he did before. of course take this relatively because he won Hamburg and finals of the French which are clay court and taxing on body tournaments.

I hope that he keeps caring about breaking serve and not just waiting for one moment to break like Pete.

fed's losing more now because he's finally getting some competition...not because he just wants to focus on slams

Click to expand...

I agree. Federer is the kind of player that tries to win every tournament he plays, he is a winner and doesn´t tank tournaments. If he doesn´t win it´s because someone played better that day, not because he didn´t try his best.

Sampras cared about 2 things - slams and #1 ranking. Everything else was secondary and he didn't really care that much about winning every tournament or dominating his peers.

I see the same attitude beginning to show in Roger's play this year. There is just no other way to explain it. We start with the 2 losses to Canas - ok, that was a bit of a shock. Clay court season played out according to predictions, Wimbledon was a fight but it was a foregone conclusion. The HC season has been the real shock - this is Fed's turf and the way he played in Montreal just didn't give the impression that he cared all that much. His play in the USO will be telling.

To me it seems that Fed has realized that other tournaments, even Master's series, are just tuneups for the slams. If he wants to be at the top till he's 30, he just cannot try and win every single thing he enters and keep giving 100%. Its just not possible, even for Fed. So I predict from now on we'll see him get fired up for the slams and keep getting 2-3/year, but perhaps not the Fed who loses only 5 matches a year.

I would love to be wrong and maybe he's just going through a bad patch. But I can't help but wonder that this remarkable turn of events came right after his meeting with Pete. Coincidence? - I think NOT!!

Click to expand...

You've been reading my posts, haven't you? Yeah I said these same things right after Sampras and Federer had their hit.

What coulda been so secret about their conversations? Well he couldn't tell the world "now, I'm only focused on the slams; I can't last forever. I won't be giving my 100% at other tournaments"

I never saw someone brakes the recors id any game so overwhelmingly. He may get to 14 , 15 , even 16 who knows, but 22 ? Im willing to put my house on this, 22 my friend, that means he needs to win as many as he has won. He is alresdy a most dominint player in a 4 year period ever. He is 26. if he has 3 more good years, that a max of 9 slams if all goes perfect for him ( no new tallents, no current players developing into real contenders etc ) which is impossible. If he takes 1 or 2 per season, its most likely hell get to 16 or there about , hopefully with one frenc. I think if he takes the french 08 he will be satisfied with 15 + French. Face it , no player will come near this any time soon, \ IMO

Fed is gonna focus on the slams, especially the french IMO. I think were gonna see him put more emphasis on his clay game. He will also try to secure aus, wimby and uso with his serve, whilst keeping his amazing arsenal of shots intact, perhaps even getting stronger. He's said himself that this year, he's been trying to incorporate an element of 'explosivity' into his game.

His losses on clay this year - well, its clay
his close wimby final - he was a bit off, and nadal really wanted to win wimbledon
his loss to djoker - djoker is an amazingly talented player, and he basically pulled an AUS 05 Safin

from uso 2008 and on, djoker will challenge fed for all the harcourt slams.
If fed doesn't win FO 08, we might see him taking some emphasis off his hardcourt game and putting more on clay. He will win wimbledon for the rest of his career (with Nadal maybe making a valiant push one more year), and perhaps half of the aus and uso's he plays.

Wow...that's a high minimum...considering there is a new generation coming up full of a lot of talent. You have him winning wimbledon 9 years straight for sure which is pretty nice considering the grass is getting slower every year. And you have him wining the US seven years straight as one of your minimum's and there is this kid who's pretty good on the hardcourts named Djokovic along with a few other guys like Nadal and if roddick weren't so stubbourn i would say roddick but...sigh...winning the french for him will always be hard because you always have those random guys that win that and then you have you're nadal's etc. also it's doubtful that he'l be able to keep up this pace for four more years...he's is human aand will get older and now that he has competition i think he's lost a little bit of his mystique because now everyone is realizing he is beatable. Federer was born in a very fortunate generation and we'll see if he can prove himself for sure now that he's actually being challenged...not that he hasn't proved himself enough...but to be considered in the same class as sampras, bjorg, becker, agassi even, he has to be able to win with 5 or 6 guys challenging him. And remember This generation, roddick, blake etc. were getting beat up by old men like andre and pete for a majority of the time.

Wow...that's a high minimum...considering there is a new generation coming up full of a lot of talent. You have him winning wimbledon 9 years straight for sure which is pretty nice considering the grass is getting slower every year. And you have him wining the US seven years straight as one of your minimum's and there is this kid who's pretty good on the hardcourts named Djokovic along with a few other guys like Nadal and if roddick weren't so stubbourn i would say roddick but...sigh...winning the french for him will always be hard because you always have those random guys that win that and then you have you're nadal's etc. also it's doubtful that he'l be able to keep up this pace for four more years...he's is human aand will get older and now that he has competition i think he's lost a little bit of his mystique because now everyone is realizing he is beatable. Federer was born in a very fortunate generation and we'll see if he can prove himself for sure now that he's actually being challenged...not that he hasn't proved himself enough...but to be considered in the same class as sampras, bjorg, becker, agassi even, he has to be able to win with 5 or 6 guys challenging him. And remember This generation, roddick, blake etc. were getting beat up by old men like andre and pete for a majority of the time.

Click to expand...

As I wrote before, djoko is not a joker, this guy is, I mean he thinks that you brake a record of 14 majors with min 22 ? Its like someone runns 100m 7.45 and brakes a 9.78 record that stands now .. SIlly.

I think Federer should try to gain more muscle and lose some more fat. He could kick some serious butt then and work more on his fitness levels. He has to be as fit and have the same endurance with Nadal.

I was looking at Sampras's career stats, and it's actually pretty interesting. Of course they're their own players, but it seems as though their careers have almost mirrored each other up to this point. At the end of 1997, Sampras had 52 career wins and 10 majors. He then only won 12 more tournaments for the rest of his career. It will be interesting to see how the downside of Fed's career compares.

Sampras was good, but he was no genius like Federer. For a start he was only ever a contender for the French once when he reached the semi's and lost in straight sets, secondly he didn't dominate hard courts and grass the way Federer has. Federer is currently tied equal for the longest winning streak at 3 of the four grand slams, how many players can say they've done that?

To the OP: No, I don't think Roger is exclusively focused on the Slams. However he may become more so. If the trend continues (and there's no really substantial reason to think it won't, at least for the next 3-4 years) he is on his way to 16-20 GS titles. If YOU had that opportunity, where would you place most of the emphasis/effort??!! CC